I'm sorry about your personal misadventures, but your opinions are very much in disagreement with the majority of what I've read/experienced myself - especially for some of the lenses you mentioned.

If you're happier with Canon lenses good for you, but I still think your generalizations are far from reality.

He said the 70-200 and 400 f/2.8 IS are better than the 120-300 and 100-300, which is absolutely true. Canon's telephotos and super telephotos are some of the best in the world. He said the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 focus inconsistently, which is something I've heard plenty of times (with any 3rd party lens really). And he finished it off saying that the 35mm f/1.4 is the only lens superior to it's Canon counterpart (which most people agree on).

It seems like you're reading what he said very selectively since most of what he did say tends to mirror what I've read/experienced. And he's not really making "generalizations" he was very specific about the lenses and the problems that they had.

He said that all of Sigma lenses, except the new 35mm, are worse than their Canon counterpart.

Now, it doesn't seem to me that Canon has anything similar to a 120-300/2.8 or a 100-300/4, right? What's the point of comparing a 120-300 zoom with a 400mm prime (that costs 5 times as much)? And by the way, every comment I've read on both lenses was ecstatic.

Let's compare apples to apples at least. Many people prefer their Sigma 50mm (in spite of focus quirks) and 85mm to their Canikon and even Zeiss equivalent because of the razor-like center sharpness wide-open and nice bokeh. Many people preferred the 50-500's smoother bokeh to the 100-400L. 17-70mm VS Canon 17-85mm. And so on.

Beware that I'm not stating the opposite: I'm not saying every Sigma lens is great or better than its Canon equivalent. I'm going so far as disagreeing with the opposite assertion.

Some people have a very different mind attitude towards Canon and other brands. When Canon products have problems, well, it just happens, sample variation is a hard reality and so on. When other products, most of the time much cheaper, have similar/other problems then it's all about terrible QC.

My current Sigma 50 sits largely unused because of inconsistent focus. It's just never quite on. Beautiful lens optically but man, I can't trust the focus. Based on what I've read about the 35 1.4, I'm considering selling the Sigma 50 and my Canon 28 1.8 and replacing with the Sigma 35 1.4. I like the wider FOV and I think it can replace most of what I wanted to do with the 50 anyway.

I think if they re-did their 50 1.4 with the "A" treatment it would be a HUGE hit among Canon shooters. But it damn well better focus better than the current version, because what's out there now just isn't acceptable.

Not trying to get in the middle of this argument specifically, but it does seem like over half the contributors in this forum, find sport in reading things (and quoting them) selectively, and sometimes out of context (happens to me a lot)...So I guess I feel justified in doing it here. I see something I want to talk about it, so I quote it alone, by itself...then I expound my own sentiment.

The more egregious culprits seem to be absent in the above exchange, so that's a good thing. It gets extra annoying when their posts appear to exceed 8000 words. At about the 3000 word mark, there are self indulgent, narcissistic diva issues going on...Again I'm not directing this part at any of you in this thread.

However, this type of thing, happens in literally every forum, not just here...as most of you know I'm sure.

Some of you need to chillax a bit. So what if one person has had bad experiences with specific Sigma lenses, and the other not so much? I recently bought a much maligned Sigma telephoto zoom lens, and am glad I did. I had an open mind, and wanted to try something for myself. I found most of the naysaying, nitpicking negative reviews, to be just that. It cost half what the similar Canon model cost (and that Canon design is nearly a decade older). The Canon replacement or "update", if it ever comes, will cost 3x to 4x what the current Sigma lens sells for. Will it be 4x better? Certainly not. Will it be 2x better? No. Is the current one 2x better? No, optically I say it's not any better.

What's important is, can you get a specific lens to work the way you want it to, at the price you are willing to pay, making compromises if necessary (however small) you are willing to live with? I've been able to do that.

With the money I saved, I put towards buying a 6D. Talk about a radically good camera for the money, and money far better spent than on an old white Canon lens...just so I could say I have one like all the millions of other blowhards who have one.

So, what's less important, is buying a name brand for the snob appeal. I'm not saying that's the only reason to buy Canon glass. Most Canon glass is fine and dandy (I have a couple of L lenses), but some of it is highly overvalued for what it is. The Canon 35mm f/1.4L is a stark example, given the new Sigma offering.

Will Canon's update to their 35mm be worth the extra money, over the Sigma? I say no, no matter how sharp it is. More sharpness over the Sigma lens, clearly is not called for...unless you are a pixel peeper with a future 60 MP full frame body, and you never print smaller than 40 x 60 inches at 240 or 300 dpi. In other words, you probably aren't that person, nor is anyone...especially if you have to wait till 2017 for that camera that you want so much, to finally come down the pike...You're pining away for a pipe dream that is not even necessary to perform mind-blowingly terrific photography...today, in the here and now!

I am a professional wedding photographer and I also do a fair amount of landscape and bit of wildlife work. I've tried long and hard with Sigma and Tamron lenses. In a professional context, I have found their AF systems lacking. I have found their quality control extreamly poor and their durability certainly isn't in the pro league. Flaking off paintwork, lenses which a massively out of spec when new, elements which become loose easily, aperture motors which burn out. As I said before, as a pro, I am done with Sigma. It's a brand I've lost faith in. I buy Canon because the little bit more money gives me a far more reliable and durable product. Let me give another example, I used to use a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Dii lens. Optically it was very nice, although it had very strong curvature and distortion at 17mm. It had nice colours, but the AF was loud and rough. After 5 professional weddings, it literally fell apart on me. I know use it as paperweight and a pen holder. This lens lasted me less than a year. I replaced it with a 16-35 f2.8 II L, which cost an awfull lot more money...but it's never missed a beat. It's silent to use and very well built. I've been using it now for my 6th season...My current 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II is now 2 years old and it looks immaculate even though it's had a hard life. It's still optically amazing. My Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG looked rough as hell after a year when all the paint started to flake off and it had to be sent to Sigma three times that year for calibration issues, one of which was never resolved. If you want to buy off brand, go for it and enjoy. It's your hard earned money and your photography requirements....but for this photographer...I'm done with Simga and Tamron.

As to Sigma lenses which are better than Canon, I'd like to add one more to the list, the Siggi 15mm f2.8 fisheye. I think it's a little sweet heart of a lens and better than the Canon variant...but watch that paint flake finish!

The 120-300 OS was heralded by Sigma as Prime sharp....so comparing it to a 70-200 f2.8 II L or a 300mm f2.8 L should be fairly reasonable? I still stand by my statement that the 70-200 f2.8 II L is a better and cheaper option, the 300L is an even better option and the Siggi can't really compete on any level with either.

I think sigma zooms to date have definatley not been nearly as good as some of their primes

I only have the sigma 85 the 50 and the 35 primes

the new 35 is in another league to the other 2 and quite fankly one of the best lenses i've ever used

the 85 is very very good i use it alot (I use this lens more now than the 70-200 II and that is at weddings)its sharper at f2 than the 70-200 is at f2.8 its lighter and less obtrusive it is my goto portrait lens.

the 50 well its ok but not great like the other 2 lenses its not really much better than the canon 50 f1.4 and its bigger and heavier

GMC, I have no experience with the Sigma zoom lenses you mention. I only know the one I have, is not painted, and is not a 70-200, and is not an f/2.8. The white Canon lens I was referring to, is also neither of those focal lengths or apertures. I don't doubt the version 1 300 f/2.8 Canon prime, is a better lens at 300mm, than the Sigma 120-300 (whether original, 2011, or the yet released version). But 300mm is not the Sigma's only focal length. It's a zoom, and the only f/2.8 zoom that covers 120-300mm. I admit I'm disappointed in the delay of the latest version of that lens, and also that the optical formula appears to be the same. But as for large superteles, I personally would rather have the 200 f/2L, than the 300 f/2.8 version 1. It's not something I have to have right now, and that's a good thing, because I need to buy a "used" Porsche 911, before I go spending $4k to $5k on a lens.

The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there. I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

Because other manufacturers have no problem at all. Every camera and lens is just perfect, no sample variation, no manufacturing tolerances. None of that. I wonder why they keep offering AFMA on high-end models though?

And of course the possibility to have AFMA on 4 distances and for zooms at 4 extensions (i.e. 16 total parameters) is really really bad. Ridiculous that it even allows users to MA their lenses on bodies without an AFMA feature. Poor bastards with a 60D should just knock their head on Canon's manufacturing tolerances, because this is what they paid for. And for 60 bucks? Puah. When Canikon will do the same they will charge 200-300 and people will be happy then.

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

I'm just passing on my personal and professional findings from buying and selling lenses over the last 15 years bud. Sorry to hear that you think I'm zealous...and all that other stuff. I'm mostly replying to previous comments. When asked a question, I generally respond...not that I'm too fussed if anyone disagrees with me. This isn't a popularity contest. I don't have an axe to grind, but Sigma lost me years ago as a customer. If people ask me 20 times, they will get the same responce 20 time. As to Canon's QC, I've bought more Canon glass than Sigma over the years and their QC is a lot better than Sigma from my experiance. Not that I haven't had problems, I've had a few lenses which needed to go back to Canon (covered in the 1 year warrenty - CPS platinum cover).

I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

Because other manufacturers have no problem at all. Every camera and lens is just perfect, no sample variation, no manufacturing tolerances. None of that. I wonder why they keep offering AFMA on high-end models though?

And of course the possibility to have AFMA on 4 distances and for zooms at 4 extensions (i.e. 16 total parameters) is really really bad. Ridiculous that it even allows users to MA their lenses on bodies without an AFMA feature. Poor bastards with a 60D should just knock their head on Canon's manufacturing tolerances, because this is what they paid for. And for 60 bucks? Puah. When Canikon will do the same they will charge 200-300 and people will be happy then.

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

Seriously, if you don't like Sigma products for whatever reason that's fine. Everybody has preferences and likings/dislikings. I just don't get your zealous attempt to make it an objective-matter-of-fact point.

I'm just passing on my personal and professional findings from buying and selling lenses over the last 15 years bud. Sorry to hear that you think I'm zealous...and all that other stuff. I'm mostly replying to previous comments. When asked a question, I generally respond...not that I'm too fussed if anyone disagrees with me. This isn't a popularity contest. I don't have an axe to grind, but Sigma lost me years ago as a customer. If people ask me 20 times, they will get the same responce 20 time. As to Canon's QC, I've bought more Canon glass than Sigma over the years and their QC is a lot better than Sigma from my experiance. Not that I haven't had problems, I've had a few lenses which needed to go back to Canon (covered in the 1 year warrenty - CPS platinum cover).

With all due respect, a lot has happened technologically, since 15 years ago. So whatever you did back then, has very little to do with what is happening with design and production today. I too, have bought and sold several lenses and cameras myself, in just the last 5 years...and used them professionally. That alone does not make my opinion count more or less than anyone else's.

And to say that Sigma's offering of a USB dock, is simply meant to correct for poor quality control, is to simply be closed minded, and to promote ignorance. If Canon or Nikon offered lenses for each other, they would do the same thing. Sigma makes lenses for use on most manufacturer's bodies, so there is always going to be variation and compatibility issues...usually software related. It has nothing to do with poor quality control. Sure Sigma has had some poor quality control, but problems with autofocus accuracy, really is not an issue of quality control. It's an issue of compatibility with a different manufacturer who makes the camera body that lens is going on. And that company has a DISINSENTIVE to make sure their camera works well with a third party lens manufacturer. Canon and Nikon, would rather you only buy their lenses, especially if they can also charge more for them than Sigma does.

Bottom line, being biased against Sigma as a company, does not make you special. It makes you a sheep, who never strays outside Canon's herd.

The last time I was at Focus on Imaging in Birmingham, I visited the Sigma stall. They had a new 70-200 2.8 there for playing with. It was very nice but the one on the stand had some pretty awful front focus (not a little) and the big 300-800 f5.6 was a lot of fun....but it was soft wide open over 500mm. Pretty sharp under that focal length....but what's the point in having an 800mm f5.6 if you can't use it wide open? My 400mm f2.8 L IS is sharper with a 2x TC and costs less. I had a go on their 500mmm f4.5, which was nice but again didn't compare to the Canon version. At that point I figured I was done there. I still own and use a Siggi 12-24mm mkI, which is still a pretty unique lens in the market place. Quality control was awful with this particular lens, but a good one is a good find. I think it's amusing that Sigma have bought out this dock thang....getting us to pay for a device to correct their awful QC and on our time too....come on Sigma. I suspect that Sigma's QC is going to drop even further now...and they will blame their userbase for not stumping up the cash for the USB dock.

for new 70-200 do you mean the lens that won as the best expert lens at tipa awards 2011 or something newer? had the same lens and i had to adjust focus with a +3....so? i had to adjust a canon 70-200 f/4 with a +7...the canon was ff "badly"...lol!and could you tell me why canon services provides by payment the adjustement of focus for lenses? i do not believe they fix sigma lenses.

and now the brutal fact...sigma 35 mm destroys canon offering costing significantly less...40% or so